National anthem video response is insufficient

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

Send email to this addressEnter Your NameAdd a comment hereVerification

In order to solve the issue of whether the national anthem should be played at rallies, the school leadership has decided to bring it down to a vote.

Last week, a video was played presenting the opinions of two students from two opposing sides of the argument. It was meant to inform the student body about the issue at hand and help them decide if leadership’s decision to eliminate the national anthem from the last rally should stand.

An open discussion followed last week in the theater, and students were allowed to voice their opinions. All students were then asked to vote this weekifthe national anthem should be played or if another song should replace the anthem.

We at The Californian believe that while this action might have been helpful at an earlier stage, it was dragged on far too long to possess any relevance to most students.

The last rally was on Jan. 19, news broke in February, and action was taken starting mid-April, three months after the original incident.

By the time the open discussion was hosted in the theater, the general opinion on the topic was indifference.

But by doing all this, in case the decision does garner widespread media attention again, it will appear as though the students are to blame since we were the ones to vote, after all, even through the majority of the student body wasn’t involved.

If backlash of the proposed decision occurs, the collective student body would be responsible rather than the school.

In addition, many students feel as though this was a small issue blown out of proportion, and that the only reason the process happened in the first place was for the sake of the school’s reputation, not campus climate.

Most students and staff didn’t care or notice when the anthem was first removed. It was only after a student took the issue to several news sources, and when the school’s reputation was at risk, that action was considered.

Even administrators seem aware that many students are indifferent regarding the issue.

“We have heard that some students are not voting because ‘they don’t care,’ but that opinion is important to voice as well,” Principal Sarah Cranford wrote in an email.

We believe the way this issue was addressed was ineffective because of the untimely manner in which the video, open discussion, and poll were conducted.

In the future, as a collective student body, we should shift our focus on improving the campus climate rather than past issues that no longer impact most students.